Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG
Andrea Glandon
38:58
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Maxim Alzoba
40:39
Hello all
Andrea Glandon
41:25
Paul now has his mic connected.
Paul McGrady
41:38
Hi All!
Andrea Glandon
41:44
Hi Paul!
Ariel Liang
41:47
https://docs.google.com/document/d/110It4ZZMV6V4XY77J6DUq-H_ZGtdPNV8qCB_5Ukd29E/edit#
Griffin Barnett
44:07
Sorry to join late, was speaking on a webinar that just concluded a bit late
Julie Hedlund
45:20
hand up
Philip Corwin
54:48
The victorious respondent might want identity on the record.
Ariel Liang
57:09
PCRT: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSKFv1Mg18/edit#gid=872694278
Paul Tattersfield
57:49
I take a different view I think it should hinge on who wins the proceeding
Paul McGrady
58:31
stepping away for a moment
Paul Tattersfield
01:00:09
The respondent should have the choice if successful so he is returned to the position prior to the proceedings
Griffin Barnett
01:00:49
There is still generally validity to publishing the parties’ information regardless of who wins or loses
Griffin Barnett
01:01:00
So I don’t think a party should be able to redact their info in the decision simply bc they win or lose
Paul Tattersfield
01:01:26
no reccomemended is not strong enough
Paul Tattersfield
01:02:00
just saye the position
Marie Pattullo
01:02:16
Standard position?
Paul Tattersfield
01:02:38
Marie +1
Griffin Barnett
01:03:29
“Where a Complainant has been updated with registration data provided to the Complainant by the URS Provider, in general, such information should be published in the subsequent URS decision, except where a URS panel holds that such data should be redacted/withheld from the published decision”
Paul Tattersfield
01:03:56
may required
Paul McGrady
01:03:57
back
Paul Tattersfield
01:04:02
says may required
Griffin Barnett
01:04:10
@Phil that’s my point - who wins or loses the cases should not be determinative or even a factor in terms of whether or not to publish the info
Griffin Barnett
01:04:30
It should hinge on entirely other factors,
Griffin Barnett
01:04:47
Possible identity theft, use of the info of a minor, maybe a political dissident or something like that
Griffin Barnett
01:06:53
leaving it to the discretion of the panel in all cases avoids potential concerns about having a defaulting respondent who doesn’t come forward to give a reason for redaction
Philip Corwin
01:07:28
Looking at the donut for this one, there were 26 separate public responses falling into 9 separate categories - so no coalescence around a broadly supported recomendation
Paul McGrady
01:08:05
Panel's discretion and a right for either party to ask the Panel to one thing or the other.
Griffin Barnett
01:08:18
Yes, succinctly stated Paul
Marie Pattullo
01:09:13
Panel's discretion and a right for either party to MAKE A REASONED REQUEST TO the Panel to one thing or the other?
Zak Muscovitch
01:09:24
That is essentially how it works now - a party can always request redaction, no?
Griffin Barnett
01:09:47
I suppose in theory, but not sure it’s explicitly stated that they can in the URS rules
Zak Muscovitch
01:11:04
This is the text from the UDRP. Maybe its not in the URS. j. Notification and Publication. The Provider shall notify us of any decision made by an Administrative Panel with respect to a domain name you have registered with us. All decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision.
Philip Corwin
01:11:45
Can we simply agree to recommend that panelist has discretion to withhold publication if respondent makes a request and it is determined to constitute good cause?
Cyntia King (USA)
01:11:58
+1 @Phil
Griffin Barnett
01:13:04
Perhaps the Panel should have discretion to do so sub sponte as well, but otherwise agree with Phil
Philip Corwin
01:13:08
Given that most URS cases are default, it will be a very small % where a respondent would even be a participant who might wish to make such a request
Griffin Barnett
01:13:09
*sua sponte
Griffin Barnett
01:13:42
The only thing that gets published btw would be the name as it appears in registrar’s whois record
Paul Tattersfield
01:13:48
wsould support Phil but would prefre a successful respondent have the final say because thet returns them to position they wre in before the complaint
Griffin Barnett
01:13:54
i don’t think any other identifying/contact info is included
Philip Corwin
01:14:29
I made a minimalist proposal because I don't see anything beyond that getting broad much less consensus support
Paul McGrady
01:14:44
sure
Philip Corwin
01:15:10
To be clear, it is my suggestion, not a recommendation I feel strongly about. I accept whatever the WG can agree upon.
Maxim Alzoba
01:15:39
not all registries have that information
Maxim Alzoba
01:15:47
it might be with the Registrar
Julie Hedlund
01:17:21
From Paul M: Panel's discretion and a right for either party to ask the Panel to one thing or the other.
Kathy Kleiman
01:17:57
Paul M: Panel's discretion and a right for either party to ask the Panel to one thing or the other.
Griffin Barnett
01:19:43
A successful respondent can request redaction but I think ultimately it requires the panel to decide if it is appropriate or not; I don’t think a prevailing respondent should have a right to redaction simply as a matter of having prevailed
Paul Tattersfield
01:20:36
I agree the paneleist should have discretion but it would be good if we could also give a successful respondent the option to prevent publishing so they could be returned to the position they wre in before the claim was brought
Paul McGrady
01:20:46
A Griffin - correct. No right to redaction or not. Just a right to ask for it.
Justine Chew
01:21:02
Agree @Griffin, @Paul. Discretion given to panelist means to me that panelist has the final say.
Griffin Barnett
01:21:04
Agree with the basic formulation as captured by Paul M
Jay Chapman
01:21:12
What’s the harm in giving that discretion to the successful respondent?
Susan.Payne
01:21:18
agree with Paul and Griffin
Griffin Barnett
01:21:37
It is important as a matter of public record and transparency to know the parties, whether or not they prevailed or lost
Susan.Payne
01:22:34
I don't think non publication of the registrant info takes them "back to the position they were in". The longstanding default has been that the respondent's info is published, even post GDPR.
Susan.Payne
01:22:42
Support panellist discretion
Griffin Barnett
01:22:45
Correct Susan
Philip Corwin
01:22:47
Agree with Griffin. For sake of transparency publication should occur regardless of determination unless good cause is presented to panelist. (personal view of course)
Ariel Liang
01:23:41
yes
Susan.Payne
01:23:47
support the Paul M suggestion
Ariel Liang
01:23:52
yes
Julie Hedlund
01:23:59
yes we have captured
Philip Corwin
01:24:06
We will need to circulate staff's recommendation language for final approval
Ariel Liang
01:24:07
We will clean up the note
Ariel Liang
01:24:10
after the call
Kathy Kleiman
01:24:14
Paul M: Panel's discretion and a right for either party to ask the Panel to one thing or the other.
Philip Corwin
01:27:19
This proposal had 75% support and 2% opposition. It should be accepted as is IMHO.
Justine Chew
01:33:54
Do we have to learn to speak "Paul M" ?
Susan.Payne
01:34:06
correct paul - we absolutely agreed in sub B that the looseness of the recommendation language needed correcting
Paul McGrady
01:41:36
But the Recommendation is inaccurate.
Paul McGrady
01:41:40
as written
Ariel Liang
01:41:55
The contextual language of this recommendation specifically references 4.2: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Recommendation+%233
Paul McGrady
01:41:55
Surely we don't have to go back to public comment to fix an error
Ariel Liang
01:42:17
So the intent of the recommendation is reference 4.2, but the language itself is a paraphrase
Julie Hedlund
01:44:34
As Ariel notes, the intent of the recommendation was to reflect the actual language of 4.2 “predominant language used in the Registrant’s country or territory”
Philip Corwin
01:45:06
Susan--to be clear, I was not stating or implying you had recommended going back to current rule. I thought I heard Kathy suggest that.
Zak Muscovitch
01:45:51
Section 4.2 of URS Procedure:
Zak Muscovitch
01:45:52
The Notice of Complaint shall be in English and translated by the Provider intothe predominant language used in the Registrant’s country or territory.
Philip Corwin
01:46:32
Point taken
Justine Chew
01:46:36
+1 Susan, I'm too am not sure how we got this point. I recall your point about wanting providers to comply with URS procedure paras 4.2 and 4.3.
Philip Corwin
01:47:10
So what is the modified version we are considering?
Susan.Payne
01:47:12
Sub Group B made the relevant recommendation
Ariel Liang
01:48:12
The Working Group recommends that URS Providers must comply with URS Procedure para 4.2 and para 4.3 and transmit the Notice of Complaint to the Respondent, with translation in the predominant language used in the Registrant’s country or territory, via email, fax, and postal mail.
Julie Hedlund
01:48:23
@Phil: See the text above
Susan.Payne
01:48:27
in the chat Phil
Julie Hedlund
01:48:45
And staff will circulate it in the updated public comment analysis docment
Ariel Liang
01:49:17
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20200818/6585de4b/Wave1Rec27-PossiblenextstepsforURS-RPMPDP-0001.pdf
Marie Pattullo
01:50:44
John is Council liaison do can add bits if needed.
Marie Pattullo
01:51:08
*so
John McElwaine
01:55:11
The Wave1 Rec 27 was simply to update terminology to match the new SSAD model
Julie Hedlund
01:58:21
hand up
Ariel Liang
02:00:32
3, 4 are addressed by URS Rec 1
Paul McGrady
02:00:37
Interesting question: If our Report is adopted last by the Board, doesn't our language choice govern over the EPDP? I'm not saying we do that, but it is an interesting hypothetical.
Maxim Alzoba
02:02:05
not necessary, if two policies contradict each other - it is and issue
Paul McGrady
02:02:54
I'm not suggesting we do it. It was just an mischievous,, stray thought. :)
Maxim Alzoba
02:03:12
bye all , I have to drop
Ariel Liang
02:03:44
It is on the analysis doc as a side comment for Q1
Philip Corwin
02:04:00
We should be making relevant aspects of URS consistent with EPDP1. I do not see how our Charter lets us reconsider and change its recommendations.
Ariel Liang
02:05:34
Also see p.139 of EPDP Phase 1 Final Report: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-final-20feb19-en.pdf
Ariel Liang
02:05:48
For Purpose 6-PA5
Julie Hedlund
02:05:53
@Phil: They aren’t asking for changes to its recommendations, just to develop Implementation Guidance/Recs to address those recommendations
Philip Corwin
02:05:57
We should be careful to clarify, not create conflict or contradict